Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Multiple choice time.
A black man in America is mostly likely to be killed by...
A. A goldfish
B. A football helmeted bear shot from a cannon.
C. A fast moving train
D. A robot clown named Mr. Sparkles
E. A black man.
. In one study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (covering reported violent crime that occurred between 1993-98) when the offender had been identified, 76% of the time the violence was intra-racial.
There's being brainwashed and then there's just straight ignoring the facts.
I'm not gonna feed the troll any more.
Since you want to be "Mr Statistics" have you cross referenced this with the economics aspects of this report?
Of course not!
Here find this stat, how many wealthy whites have been murdered by other whites?
I bet the stats would be higher than the one that you presented!
Poor, and uneducated people comit more crimes and therefore if they all live in the same area (segregation) they will comit more violent crimes against the most available victim.....which would be other blacks/latinos/poor whites ect.........saying this I ask you what then is your point?
I never said people didn't have differences. I realize people in relatively homogeneous areas of the world aren't perfect. I am just saying that, you are adding more fuel to the fire, which increases the probability that there will be problems. The facts are pretty easy to see. Small, homogeneous populations, with strong national identities are the happiest countries in the world. And they are more peaceful and have lower crime. Diverse countries are always less peaceful, with more social unrest, and much higher crime. The United States has one of the highest crime rates in the world. And we have more people in prison than any other country.
I am sure that jews don't all get along with each other, but do you really think it is a good idea to move some muslims in next door? I realize I don't get along with my sister all the time, but does that mean I want some trumpet-playing, spanish-speaking Mexicans to move in next door?
What happens with diversity is, diversity causes a division, at some point something will happen that will cause some sort of political upheaval between the two groups. Like the Rodney King beating started LA riots. Once this happens, the groups will begin to see each other as an enemy. Violence escalates between the groups that further divides the groups. At some point they will frustrated enough with each other to the point that one group wants to "get rid" of the other. Then it is a battle over territory, with neither side wanting to give an inch. In politics, minority groups don't see themselves as being represented and want to become independent. At first they seek autonomy, then they seek sovereignty, then they seek secession.
Racial tension is rapidly causing the degeneration of this country into partisan bickering groups. With many states threatening nullification of federal laws and even secession(Texas).
Once this country breaks up, historians will undoubtedly accredit it to the push for diversity, and the federal governments seizure of control of the entire nation, while trying to suppress dissenters.
I am not going to say that education and poverty rates don't play a role. But Hispanics generally live in much more poverty stricken conditions than blacks, and they are taught in the same bad schools. Yet, they score far better on the same tests.
People have claimed cultural bias on IQ tests forever, but asians score better on IQ tests than Europeans. So, to me, it is nothing but excuses because you don't want to admit the truth.
This is where your odd way of thinking is flawed.
If you have a latino, black, white and asian child brought up in the same household and treated the same way, education and all you mean to tell me that there would be a large difference in their IQ test?
Tell me how would that be? External factors play a bigger role than what you think
That is very true, and something view people ever consider. With Ireland, it was in the same ethnicity. It was Irish Catholics versus Irish Protestants. Same ethnicity, different faith. Very sad.
Something else to consider as well. This has happened within the African-American community, not with the same amount of violence as far as I know, but it was like this. It was "light-skin African-Americans" versus "dark-skin African-Americans" in some cases. Not to the extent of violence, but there has been tension there.
That developed from slavery, where light skinned slaves got treated better than the darker skinned field hands.....thus creating division with the slaves which like other psychological issues that was passed down generationally
This is where your odd way of thinking is flawed.
If you have a latino, black, white and asian child brought up in the same household and treated the same way, education and all you mean to tell me that there would be a large difference in their IQ test?
Tell me how would that be? External factors play a bigger role than what you think
That is exactly what I am saying, along with all the "experts" that have been studying IQ for decades.
Liberal scientists will say that environmental factors are half the variance of IQ, and genetics are the other half. Some scientists believe the correlation of genetics could be as high as 80%, which is based on studies of identical twins.
There is no guarantee that two "gifted" people will have gifted children, but the probability is very high. Of course there is also the chance that two quite ungifted parents will give birth to an extremely gifted child, and that child will not be raised in an environment that supports his IQ, but he will be extremely gifted regardless.
I don't think most people really understand what IQ is. Many believe that memory and social/speech capabilities are IQ. While these may give the appearance of high IQ, most intelligence tests don't test for memory or vocabulary. They focus on a persons ability to make decisions, find patterns, understand and apply concepts, and to be able to visualize/create something in your mind.
It would be rather difficult for that kind of intelligence to be expressed by just having a conversation with someone. Even very unintelligent people are generally "good talkers" and many have exceedingly good memories. They are just incapable of "understanding" a concept that you are trying to explain to them. I am sure you have run into these kinds of people in your own lives.
I have a feeling that most Americans have basically no concept on how genes actually work. When we learned about genetics in school, on very simple concepts about "pea plants" and the probability of inheritable traits, practically my entire class couldn't grasp the concept of how any of it worked. The people in my math class would be lost without their calculators and without following a precise formula. That is why word problems were so "feared", because you have to apply a concept and have some basic comprehension skills.
Keep in mind, having a high IQ means absolutely nothing. It doesn't mean you'll be successful, it doesn't mean you'll be rich, it doesn't mean you'll do anything at all. And vice versa with low IQ.
And if you don't believe me, you should just read all the available information on the subject of IQ. Check google, check your local library, but don't read anything from any biased websites, like VDare or stormfront, and don't read any opinion pieces from obvious political ideologues. I like to look for information from colleges, usually they end in ".edu".
A few people that have done plenty of research on the matter, who have had international acclaim for their research, and even the nobel prize. These four men are good places to start.
"Watson has repeatedly supported genetic screening and genetic engineering in public lectures and interviews, arguing that stupidity is a disease and the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be cured. He has also suggested that beauty could be genetically engineered, saying "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
"He has been quoted in The Sunday Telegraph as stating: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."
"While speaking at a conference in 2000, Watson had suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, hypothesizing that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos. His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin — which gives skin its color — had been found to boost subjects' sex drive. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."
"During 2007, new research from the 2006 New Zealand census showed that women without a tertiary (college) education had produced 2.57 babies each, compared to 1.85 babies for those women with a higher education. During July 2007, The Sunday Star-Times misquoted Flynn as having suggested that New Zealand risked having a less intelligent population and that a "persistent genetic trend which lowered the genetic quality for brain physiology would have some effect eventually". He referred to hypothetical eugenicists' suggestions for reversing the trend, including some sort of oral contraceptive "in the water supply and ... an antidote" in order to conceive."
Basically, if intelligence is largely genetic, then less intelligent people having more children over a large period of time will push the average intelligence down. In the same way that shorter people having more children will eventually push the average height down.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-30-2010 at 04:18 AM..
It seems like Americans, particularly white Americans, strongly oppose IRR. I understand that its 1929 moving to 1930, so that explains a lot.
Why do people oppose race mixing?
Whether it's people opposing race mixing, or gay marriage, or anything else is because they want to control other people and what they do based on their own internal beliefs and what they consider is "right." Seriously, I wish that people come to the conclusion at some point in their life to just live and live out their own lives and be happy and content and just leave everyone else the heck alone and not concern themselves with who other people are with, marry, or have sex with. Just be concerned with who "you" (in general) are with, marry, have sex with, and let everyone else do the same.
These social issues are a real pain and I just get sick of constantly being bogged down with things that should not even be an issue. I consider these sorts of things as time wasters as we are all here on this earth for such a limited amount of time. So, instead of being able to go out into the world and fully enjoy our time here and be able to learn, live, love, we instead have to constantly put up with this nonsensical stuff that doesn't make one bit of difference at the end when our time is up on this earth.
Whether it's people opposing race mixing, or gay marriage, or anything else is because they want to control other people and what they do based on their own internal beliefs. Seriously, I wish that people come to the conclusion at some point in their life to just live and live out their own lives and be happy and content and just leave everyone else the heck alone and not concern themselves with who other people are with, marry, or have sex with. Just be concerned with who "you" (in general) are with, marry, have sex with, and leave everyone else alone.
It would be nice if what you do has no effect on anyone else, but the truth is, practically every single thing you do in your life effects many other people in some way.
Let me explain it from a liberal perspective.
I hate cars, I hate oil, I hate that the United States funds terrorism by being such a mass consumer of oil.
Liberals will generally try to push mass transit, heavily tax/fine gas or roads to make it almost impossible for someone to drive. While also demanding that emissions and fuel mileage standards get pushed up to almost unreasonable levels(which btw, I totally agree with). But Republicans push the notion if "we should be free to drive whatever we want".
The truth is, people drinking, smoking, having sex, having children, not getting an education, etc. All have huge effects on our society.
Yes, you not being educated has a draining effect on our society. So should the government mandate education? Well it already does through high-school. People having children out of wedlock has a draining effect on our economy and our society. So should we regulate it? And people not having their required 2.11 children has a very damaging effect on our economy and our society(if no one has children, then there is no one to support the elderly when they can't work anymore). So should we mandate that all women should have at least two children? Alcohol has a very damaging effect on our society also, and in marriages. But should we regulate it?
You really need to look passed the childish ideas of "No one should be allowed to tell me what to do, so I'll just do the opposite of what they want!!!! See, I win, haha!!".
I would personally like to see an absolute end to all single-parent families. I think every child should be raised in a two-parent family with both a mother and a father, so they can have role-models and learn how to interact with both sexes.
Liberal policies have done absolutely nothing but destroy the family. The United States has the highest single-parent rate in the entire world(34%), and it just keep growing. And interracial relationships have one of the highest burdens on those statistics than anything else. Since interracial relationships have the highest probability of failure of all relationships in this country. Keep in mind, it wasn't always this way. Once upon a time this country had one of the lowest single-parent family rates, with one of the highest marriage and lowest divorce rates. We were founded by puritan evangelical prudes.
So while I don't want to tell people what they can and can't do. I want to make sure people understand the dangers they are setting themselves and especially their children for, just because they think they should be allowed to do anything they want.
It would be nice if what you do has no effect on anyone else, but the truth is, practically every single thing you do in your life effects many other people in some way.
Let me explain it from a liberal perspective.
I hate cars, I hate oil, I hate that the United States funds terrorism by being such a mass consumer of oil.
Liberals will generally try to push mass transit, heavily tax/fine gas or roads to make it almost impossible for someone to drive. While also demanding that emissions and fuel mileage standards get pushed up to almost unreasonable levels(which btw, I totally agree with). But Republicans push the notion if "we should be free to drive whatever we want".
The truth is, people drinking, smoking, having sex, having children, not getting an education, etc. All have huge effects on our society.
Yes, you not being educated has a draining effect on our society. So should the government mandate education? Well it already does through high-school. People having children out of wedlock has a draining effect on our economy and our society. So should we regulate it? And people not having their required 2.11 children has a very damaging effect on our economy and our society(if no one has children, then there is no one to support the elderly when they can't work anymore). So should we mandate that all women should have at least two children? Alcohol has a very damaging effect on our society also, and in marriages. But should we regulate it?
You really need to look passed the childish ideas of "No one should be allowed to tell me what to do, so I'll just do the opposite of what they want!!!! See, I win, haha!!".
I would personally like to see an absolute end to all single-parent families. I think every child should be raised in a two-parent family with both a mother and a father, so they can have role-models and learn how to interact with both sexes.
Liberal policies have done absolutely nothing but destroy the family. The United States has the highest single-parent rate in the entire world(34%), and it just keep growing. And interracial relationships have one of the highest burdens on those statistics than anything else. Since interracial relationships have the highest probability of failure of all relationships in this country. Keep in mind, it wasn't always this way. Once upon a time this country had one of the lowest single-parent family rates, with one of the highest marriage and lowest divorce rates. We were founded by puritan evangelical prudes.
So while I don't want to tell people what they can and can't do. I want to make sure people understand the dangers they are setting themselves and especially their children for, just because they think they should be allowed to do anything they want.
You can make it more complicated if you wish; that is your perogative. I don't want you telling me about the dangers that people are setting for themselves and their children if they don't do what YOU want. You brought up all sorts of complex social issues that have been part of our society since the beginning of time and have never been addressed to everyone's satisfaction (thus we have wars and disagreements) and yet here you are with all the answers. All the answers seem very black and white to you and easily solved. They haven't been solved in thousands of years, what makes you think that any one person has the correct cookie cutter answer that will solve everything for everyone and to everyone's satisfaction?
By the way, how dare you assert that I have "childish ideas" - as I am not a child so it's not possible for me to have childish ideas. You see how that works??? I find your remark quite insulting and degrading; that's because it is because it was intended to be that way. Just because my ideas are different than yours (thank God for small miracles as far as I'm concerned) does NOT mean that I have childish ideas). I am a 47 year-old woman and wife of 26+ years, with a large family of my own, ranging in ages almost 26 to age 8. I don't want you telling me or my family what is socially and morally acceptable to YOU and I don't want you telling me how to live. I have already figured out what I want, how to raise my children, and I will let them govern themselves as they transition into adulthood (as several of them already have).
As far as "winning" - who is winning what? You make your intentions quite clear and it comes back to what I said in my original post. You sound like one of those people who wish to exert control and authority over others because you know better what is good for someone else more than they do. I don't know how that's even possible considering the only person you know anything about is yourself. You fail to see that no one wants your control or authority because we are all born with our own noggin and free will. I don't want you to do the thinking for me because I can do it for myself and others can think for themselves and make their own choices. It doesn't mean that if you personally don't have your finger in everyone's pies that the whole world will spontaneously combust. Even God lets us make our own choices and decisions; yet those who supposedly purport to be "Christians" can't do the same. What makes the religious right think that their authority supercedes God's????? I personally am not interested in the Christian right's interpretation of the bible and/or religion or morality because quite frankly I find it quite convuluted and perverted (in the original sense of the word).
I've read most of your post and quite frankly there's not enough time in my day (or the desire) to debate the ludicrous assertions that you have made. Good luck with all that.
And by the way, you might want to get yourself an actual history book vs. the revisionist history you are being offered by extreme right-wing idealogues because America was NOT founded by evangalical prudes. That is an out and out revisionist fabrication.
Bottom line is that the only household you should attempt to tend to is your own. Stay out of mine. I think that's what most people want. Maybe there are some people that like to be controlled and told what to think, say, or do. I'm not one of them. Sorry if that's a "childish idea" to you; I guess I just can't help myself. I'm weird that way.
Location: Moving around west virginia looking for home
536 posts, read 414,086 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
At the risk of sounding like a racist, which I am not. I believe that mixing the races is not a good idea.
In nature, it almost never occurs. Tigers mate with tigers, Polar Bears mate with Polar Bears. It is the natural order of things. Even birds do not cross-breed with other types of birds. You may say that dogs will cross breed, but in actual fact, dogs are all the same. They simply look different because they have been differentiated by selective breeding for certain characteristics. In a natural environment, there would be only wolves and they would not breed with coyotes or foxes.
Many people might disagree that humans are all the same not separate "breeds", but I disagree with this statement. Each "race" has their own characteristics that have evolved over millions and millions of years to adapt to their unique environment. While we are not as dependent on environmental factors as we once were, I agree with the statement that when you mix races you weaken both of them because there are factors involved that we may not have any knowledge or understanding of.
There is nothing wrong with the desire to keep a race pure. Be it white or black or any other color. I believe that we owe it to our racial heritage to not mix races (or cultures either for that matter).
It's just my opinion, anyway.
20yrsinBranson
Thank you for standing up for what you believe in even though the true racists here are going to call you one you are not its just the fact that when the majority says its racist then its stuck with it. But hey act like me and don't give a crap as to what they have to say.
Multiple choice time.
A black man in America is mostly likely to be killed by...
A. A goldfish
B. A football helmeted bear shot from a cannon.
C. A fast moving train
D. A robot clown named Mr. Sparkles
E. A black man.
. In one study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (covering reported violent crime that occurred between 1993-98) when the offender had been identified, 76% of the time the violence was intra-racial.
There's being brainwashed and then there's just straight ignoring the facts.
I'm not gonna feed the troll any more.
that is so funny. Did you get those choices on the Internet? "A football helmeted bear shot from a cannon".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that is so funny. Did you get those choices on the Internet? "A football helmeted bear shot from a cannon". 
